Nevada's Welfare Department and other Nazi
Bastards*

Only in Nevada could this
happen
In June 2014, a Court Master in Reno, Nevada refused to accept
DOCUMENTED FACTS, but instead accepted
the testimony of an Assistant D.A. (ADA) because she (the ADA) "ASSUMED"
that the child in question did not live in the home of her Court appointed
legal guardians.

The legal guardians vigorously protested because the ADA was wrong to
ASSUME
anything. This was in a Court of Law, after all. In what other state in
America can a prosecutor assume
something as opposed to knowing the facts, and then testify
about her assumptions--which
were wrong?

The petitioner in this case had prepared a two page, typed plea to the court
showing that the Welfare Department of the State of Nevada had broken the
law and engaged in harassment of the Caucasian guardians.

The Court Master ruled that this (his court) was not the proper place to
pursue illegal actions by the Welfare Department.
If not in a court of law, where can a citizen report improper actions by
the Welfare Department?
Answer: To the Welfare Department !!!!!

Welfare Court Master

I have news for those bastards. The internet is
still free. Here are the facts of how it works in Nevada.

1. A Caucasian couple goes to court to obtain legal custody for a grandchild
whose father is deceased and whose mother can no longer care for the child.
2. The aged couple applies for temporary financial help including Medicaid
from the state.
3. The Welfare Department begins to harass the aged couple, asking such
questions as, In April 2011 how many times did your daughter stay overnight
in you home? (THIS WAS IN JUNE of 2014! --three years later!) THEY KNEW
A 70 YEAR OLD MAN HAS NO ability to remember that--maybe, no one can remember
back to 2011!? BESIDES, WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE COULD IT MAKE?
The Welfare's Schutzstaffel storm troopers filed a complaint against the
biological mother for child support, whom had not been employed for two
years because of serious medical issues.
4. They conferred with the ADA and set a plan into motion. The ADA files
the papers and sets a date for the hearing before a Court Master.
5. The Court Master, sometimes referenced as Your Honorable Rubber Stamp,
opens the court, takes the opening statement from the ADA who is flanked
by two Hispanic looking assistants and one from the Welfare Dept.
6. The Court Master then accepts the ADA's ASSUMPTIONS as true, while refusing
to consider or bother to read documented facts.

One such fact is as follows: In February 2014, the Welfare Dept. canceled
legally acquired Medicaid for the child but did not notify anyone about
their illegal action. The child was without medical coverage until the Legal
Guardian accidently discovered it. The Legal Guardian protested and the
coverage was re-instated. In May 2014, again without notification to the
Legal Guardian, transferred authority from the Legal Guardians to the biological
mother without a hearing or a court order.

That was a violation of law and violated a previous court order by a real
Judge in 2011 which transferred guardianship to the grandparents. The judge
at that time ORDERED the Guardians to obtain
medical coverage for the child. That Medical coverage was in the form of
MEDICAID.

Another flagrant action occurred when -without consulting with the Legal
Guardians- assumed the child no longer lived with the grandparents,
based on absolutely nothing other than an ASSUMPTION.

7. Then, as in this case, the Court Master rubber
stamps the ADA's complaint. He held the biological mother responsible for
$5,000.

8. The Welfare department then reports to the Governor's
office that they saved the tax payers $5,000 !! Of course, they probably
failed to mention that it cost $30,000 in the court's time, the court assistant's
time, the court clerk's time, typing various notifications, the welfare
dept.'s employees time, filing of records and issuing rulings and so on
and on and on.

Quiz: How many Hispanics on a percentage bases are
taken to this court compared to Caucasians on a percentage basis, I do wonder.
I'd guess 75% of Caucasians and 1% of Hispanics. Following in italics, is
the full plea to the Court Master which he refused to consider or even to
read. (Some identifying remarks of participants are herewith removed.)

Petition to the Court
Written May 30, 2014 by (the petitioner)
Copy to: Div. of Welfare, 4055 S. Virginia St. Reno NV 89502 (via mail)

Your Honor Court Master,The Welfare Department has engaged in a number of questionable and possibly
illegal actions.

Please Witness the following.
Case number GR08-xxxxx, Dept. Five (5) in which a Court Judge ordered Guardianship
of (child's name) to (petitioners names) on xx xxxx 2011.
That court's order establishes our legal guardianship rights and responsibilities
regarding the child named (child's name).
The District Judge stated
that we would have full authority regarding the interests of (child's
name) including visitation decisions. He further stated that (child's
mother) could live with us, (the guardians) to assist (the child's
mother) recover from her medical disability.

On xx xxx 2012, Case # FV12-xxxx, the Court Master
ordered that (the child's father), the father of (child's name),
would pay child support totaling $140.00 per month. The (child's father)
was unemployed at that time and continuing to be so until his death. He
died shortly after the aforesaid order for child support.

1. Later, as legal guardians of (child's
name), we were not informed of any other Court Master’s ruling to require
(child's mother) to pay child support nor were we informed to attend
any hearing before the Court Master. We have never asked that (child's
mother) to pay child support. She had no steady job between 2010 and
2014. She had no income and no savings. Had we been at the alleged hearing,
we would have protested the
Welfare Dept. requiring her to pay child support. The majority of time in
2012 and in 2013 she was
under medical care. That care presently continues.

2. In February 2014, I (petitioner's name),
discovered that Medicaid for (child's name) had been canceled by
the Welfare department. I discovered this when I called the Medicaid Provider
to ascertain which Dentist was authorized to provide dental care for (child's
name). They informed me that her coverage had been canceled earlier by
theWelfare Dept. for reasons
unknown.
We are the legal guardians for (child's name) under the Court ruling dated
xx xxxx 2011 and were ordered to obtain medical coverage for (child's
name), for which we complied. The Welfare Department‘s canceling (child's
name)'s coverage and not consulting with her Legally appointed guardians,
compromised that Court’s order. It was an illegal act.

3. I managed to have (child's name)’s
Medicaid restored after writing a letter of protest. (I could not get through
on the telephone after waiting four hours). Therefore, we again complied
with the Court’s order to provide medical converge for (child's name).

4. A letter
reportedly typed on 19 May 2014 by an unnamed person in the Reno's Welfare
Dept., Case ID xxx xxx xxx, and received by me in Sparks, NV on 29 May 2014,
stated that (A) The Medicaid (Medical Assistance) coverage for (child's
name) would be canceled on 20 June 2014; and
(B) that I had “13 days” from the date of aforesaid letter to request a
hearing; and
(C) they claimed that (child) no longer lived with us, her legally
appointed guardians.

5. The Welfare Department is not the legal guardian
of (child's name). The grandparents are
the legal guardians under Nevada law.

6. That letter took ten days to go from
Reno to Sparks based on the alleged date typed on the letter. ( I believe
the letter was backdated.) The 13 day cut-off requirement makes it impossible
to comply. Tomorrow is Saturday and by then the 13 day response time will
have expired. This letter cannot arrive at the welfare Department until
Monday or Tuesday. Furthermore, it will take the Welfare Dept. weeks to
respond based on their past performance.

7.The Welfare
Dept.’s letter stated that (child's name) no longer lived with us,
or with the "Assistance Unit"-whatever that means, but they are in error again. (The child) has a private
bedroom and living with her Legal Guardians as per the original Court’s
order in 2011. She is cared for by her legal guardians. She lives in a safe
environment. But the Welfare Dept. continues mauling and interfering with
our legal rights as Custodians / Guardians.

8. Furthermore, another questionable action
was taken by the Welfare Dept. They scheduled a court hearing deriving from
Case No. FVxx-xxxxx on 2 June 2014. It’s suspicious that the letter of termination
of Medicaid for (child's name) arrived just ONE business day before
we must attend that hearing. I will be at the hearing, and I will support
my daughter against the continuing persecution and harassment against my
family by the Division of Welfare & Supportive Services.

9. The
Notice for the latest hearing (in item 10), was addressed only to (the
grandfather). That is improper. (Both grandparents) are the legally
appointed guardians of (child's name). Yet the Welfare Dept. addressed the
summons only to (the grandfather). This is sloppiness and incompetence
on their part. The court proceedings scheduled for June 2014 should be
permanently dismissed based on the overall incompetence and legal errors
made by the Welfare Dept.

10. Regarding the Medicaid issue, (child's
mother) received a letter from Lewis Clark of the Welfare Dept. stating
that effective 1 June 2014 (child's mother) (child's name)’s
biological mother-but not her legal guardian, were authorized
for Medicaid. That is to say, the Medicaid
obtained for (child's name) by her legally
appointed Custodians is now co-joined with that of her biological mother,
(the child's mother)
who has no legal standing or rights whatsoever.

I restate that (the grandparents)
are the Court’s appointed legal guardians of (child's name).
The child's biological mother is
not the legal guardian.
The Welfare Dept. is not the legal guardian.
The State of Nevada is not the legal guardian.
The Governor is not the legal guardian.
The Police are not the legal guardian.
The President of the United States is not the legal guardian.

Furthermore, the unsigned letter sent to me allegedly dated 19 May 2014,
but which took ten days to arrive from Reno(a distance of zero
miles), was dated on the same day as the letter written in Las Vegas to
(child's mother) on 19 May 2014.

11.Taking those letters together, we can logically
conclude that the Welfare Dept. already made the decision to move control
of medical care for (child's name)
from (the legal guardians)
to (the
child's biological mother). That
was just one Business day prior to the court hearing ordered for June 2014.

They are conniving at least and criminals at most.
They should be fired.

This concludes this compilation of facts. I pray
that the court takes these facts into consideration and dismisses the hearing
of June 2014, because the Welfare Dept. used ambush tactics and may
have violated the law, and certainly compromised the Court’s order by a
real Judge in 2011.

(signed by petitioner.)

NV Welfare's Chief Advisor?

To the Welfare Dept. State of NV, keep you nose out my business. To the
Court Masturbator, trade your rubber stamp for some brass balls.